Haekyung Jeon-Slaughter1,2, Lucile Parker Gregg3,4,5, Michael Concepcion1,6, Swati Lederer1,6, Jeffrey Penfield1,6, Peter Noel Van Buren1,6. 1. Dallas Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA. 2. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Dallas, Texas, USA. 3. Selzman Institute for Kidney Health, Section of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA. 4. Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 5. VA Health Services Research and Development Center for Innovations in Quality, Effectiveness and Safety, Houston, Texas, USA. 6. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Nephrology, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Extracellular volume (ECV) predicts mortality in hemodialysis patients, but it is difficult to assess clinically. Peridialytic blood pressure (BP) measurements can help ECV assessment. Orthostatic BP is routinely measured clinically, but its association with ECV is unknown. METHODS: In a cohort of hypertensive hemodialysis patients, we measured posthemodialysis ECV/weight with bioimpedance spectroscopy and analyzed its association with post-HD orthostatic BP measurements obtained during routine care. Using linear and logistic regression, the primary outcomes were orthostatic BP change and orthostatic hypotension (OH) defined by systolic BP decrease of at least 20 mmHg or diastolic decrease of at least 10 mmHg. Model 1 controlled for sex, age, and diabetes. Model 2 additionally controlled for ultrafiltration rate and antihypertensive medications. We conducted sensitivity analysis using OH definition of systolic BP decrease of at least 30 mmHg. FINDINGS: Among 57 participants, mean orthostatic systolic BP change was -7.30 (20) mmHg and mean ECV/weight was 0.24 (0.04) L/kg. Post-HD ECV/weight was not associated with orthostatic systolic BP change (β = 8.2, p = 0.6). There were 16 participants with and 41 participants without OH. The ECV/weight did not differ between these groups (0.22 [0.04] vs. 0.24 [0.05] L/Kg, p = 0.09) and did not predict OH in logistic regression (OR 11, 4.04; 95% CI 0.2-671, 0.03-0.530 in the two models.) In a sensitivity analysis, ECV/weight was lower in the OH group (0.22 [0.03] vs. 0.25 [0.04] L/kg, p = 0.005), but this was accompanied by differences in sex and diabetes. Using logistic regression, there was no independent association between ECV/weight with OH. DISCUSSION: Orthostatic systolic BP change after HD completion is not a reliable indicator of posthemodialysis ECV. When considering other factors associated with orthostatic BP, ECV/weight is not independently associated with OH. Although transient postdialytic differences in intravascular volume may be associated with OH, posthemodialysis OH does not necessarily indicate ECV depletion.
INTRODUCTION: Extracellular volume (ECV) predicts mortality in hemodialysis patients, but it is difficult to assess clinically. Peridialytic blood pressure (BP) measurements can help ECV assessment. Orthostatic BP is routinely measured clinically, but its association with ECV is unknown. METHODS: In a cohort of hypertensive hemodialysis patients, we measured posthemodialysis ECV/weight with bioimpedance spectroscopy and analyzed its association with post-HD orthostatic BP measurements obtained during routine care. Using linear and logistic regression, the primary outcomes were orthostatic BP change and orthostatic hypotension (OH) defined by systolic BP decrease of at least 20 mmHg or diastolic decrease of at least 10 mmHg. Model 1 controlled for sex, age, and diabetes. Model 2 additionally controlled for ultrafiltration rate and antihypertensive medications. We conducted sensitivity analysis using OH definition of systolic BP decrease of at least 30 mmHg. FINDINGS: Among 57 participants, mean orthostatic systolic BP change was -7.30 (20) mmHg and mean ECV/weight was 0.24 (0.04) L/kg. Post-HD ECV/weight was not associated with orthostatic systolic BP change (β = 8.2, p = 0.6). There were 16 participants with and 41 participants without OH. The ECV/weight did not differ between these groups (0.22 [0.04] vs. 0.24 [0.05] L/Kg, p = 0.09) and did not predict OH in logistic regression (OR 11, 4.04; 95% CI 0.2-671, 0.03-0.530 in the two models.) In a sensitivity analysis, ECV/weight was lower in the OH group (0.22 [0.03] vs. 0.25 [0.04] L/kg, p = 0.005), but this was accompanied by differences in sex and diabetes. Using logistic regression, there was no independent association between ECV/weight with OH. DISCUSSION: Orthostatic systolic BP change after HD completion is not a reliable indicator of posthemodialysis ECV. When considering other factors associated with orthostatic BP, ECV/weight is not independently associated with OH. Although transient postdialytic differences in intravascular volume may be associated with OH, posthemodialysis OH does not necessarily indicate ECV depletion.
Authors: Donal N Reddan; Lynda Anne Szczech; Vic Hasselblad; Edmund G Lowrie; Robert M Lindsay; Jonathan Himmelfarb; Robert D Toto; John Stivelman; James F Winchester; Linda A Zillman; Robert M Califf; William F Owen Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2005-06-01 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Nathan W Levin; Marcia H F G de Abreu; Lucas E Borges; Helcio A Tavares Filho; Rabia Sarwar; Surendra Gupta; Tahir Hafeez; Shaul Lev; Caroline Williams Journal: Nephrol Dial Transplant Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 5.992
Authors: Rajiv Agarwal; Allen R Nissenson; Daniel Batlle; Daniel W Coyne; J Richard Trout; David G Warnock Journal: Am J Med Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Arkom Nongnuch; Neil Campbell; Edward Stern; Sally El-Kateb; Laura Fuentes; Andrew Davenport Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2014-07-30 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: Peter Noel Van Buren; Yunyun Zhou; Javier A Neyra; Guanghua Xiao; Wanpen Vongpatanasin; Jula Inrig; Robert Toto Journal: Kidney Blood Press Res Date: 2016-11-11 Impact factor: 2.687